Allowed

Rajan P M v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC12 Dec 2022Crl.MC/3543/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against an accused husband alleging crimes under IPC Sections 354 and 294(b) arising from matrimonial disputes, finding no intent to outrage modesty or evidence of obscene words.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.742/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kasaragod are hereby quashed.

Rajan P M Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 3543 OF 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 3543 OF 2018

¶7

CRIME NO.351/2018 OF Kasaragod Police Station, Kasargod
CC 742/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KASARAGOD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAJAN P M

¶9

PANCHACHANYAM HOUSE, PALLACKADU,
KARIVEDAKAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKOL, KASARGOD.
BY ADV SHRI.M.V.S.NAMPOOTHIRY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASARGOD POLICE STATION.

¶12

2 KARTHIAYINI D/O. PALLATHAN, KULANGARADI HOUSE, ATTAYANGANAM, ANANDHASRAMAM, KASARGOD.

¶13

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI – 31.

¶14

R3 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 3543 OF 2018

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.742/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class

¶20

Magistrate Court I, Kasaragod (for short ‘the court below’).

¶21

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶22

The offences alleged against the petitioner are

¶23

punishable under Sections 354 and 294(b) of IPC.

¶24

Admittedly, the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are husband and wife. However, they were residing separately and the matrimonial dispute is pending between them. The prosecution allegation is that on 20.4.2017 at 9.30 am, when the 2^nd respondent got down from the bus at Vidhya Nagar Junction, Kasaragod and was walking away, the petitioner caught hold of her, snatched away the hand bag carried by her and thereby outraged her modesty. It is further alleged that the petitioner

¶25

uttered obscene words against her at public place.

¶26

CRL.MC NO. 3543 OF 2018

¶27

¶28

I have heard Sri.M.V.S.Namboothiry, the learned

¶29

counsel for the petitioner and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Even though notice has been served to the 2^nd respondent, there is no appearance.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶31

even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are believed in toto, no offence under section 294(b) of IPC is attracted.

¶32

As stated already, admittedly the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are husband and wife. Section 354 of IPC is attracted when the accused assaults or use criminal force to any woman intending to outrage her modesty. The only allegation in the FI statement is that when the 2^nd respondent got down from the bus, the petitioner snatched away the hand bag carried by her. There is no allegation that the said act was done by the petitioner with intent to outrage her modesty. Thus, Section 354 of IPC is not attracted.

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 3543 OF 2018

¶34

¶35

In order to satisfy the definition of “obscenity” to

¶36

attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the word uttered should be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the mind of its hearers

¶37

(See Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala 2008 (2) KLT 745). There is no case for the prosecution that the word allegedly uttered by the petitioner involves any suspicious element arousing sexual thoughts or feelings. Hence, Section 294(b) of IPC is also not attracted.

¶38

In the light of the above findings, no purpose will be served in proceeding further with the case. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.742/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kasaragod hereby stands quashed.

¶39

Crl.M.C is allowed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 3543 OF 2018

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3543/2018

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶48

ANNEXURE 1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 08.07.17.
ANNEXURE 2THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AS CRIME NO.
351/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KASARGOD
DT. 24.04.2017.

¶49

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Rajan P M v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan P M v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gireesh, C.NO.901, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Xaviour Siby Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu.U.B. Vs State of Kerala

Nias Marikkar, Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala